Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I welcome Peter Toogood, who is online. Has Mark Browne arrived yet?

Dr Mark Browne (The Executive Office): Yes, Chair, I am here.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Excellent, Mark, you are very welcome. We will first introduce the members who are in the room for you and Peter, and then we will double-check who is online. I am Colin McGrath, the Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Mike Nesbitt, the deputy Chair.

Mr Lunn: Trevor Lunn

Ms Anderson: Martina Anderson, Sinn Féin MLA for Derry.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Do we have any other members online? I know that we have Pat Sheehan online. Do we have anybody else?

We do not, so, Mark, I remind you and Peter that this meeting is being recorded by Hansard. We welcome Christopher Stalford into the room. We are just about to start the presentation on the Budget. Mark, can we pass over to you to give us a quick update, and we can then move to questions from members?

Dr Browne: Certainly, Chair, and thanks very much. I hope that the technology works for all of us. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide a briefing on the Executive Office's (TEO) budgetary requirements for the 2020-21 financial year. Part A of the Committee's template requested information on budgetary adjustments in 2019-2020. TEO received additional resource DEL budget of £0·9 million in the January monitoring round to take forward work on the historical institutional abuse (HIA) implementation, the commissioner for survivors of institutional childhood abuse (COSICA) and the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, sometimes known as victims' payments. During 2019-2020, TEO surrendered resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL) funding of £0·4 million in relation to EU exit, as it was ring-fenced and could not be used for other purposes. Capital DEL funding of approximately £7·6 million was also surrendered across the Department's capital programmes due to issues such as delays in contractor procurement and site surveys.

Where the Department's annually managed expenditure (AME) budgets are concerned, members will be aware that TEO established provisions for HIA implementation and victims' payments, which were reflected in the 2019-2020 spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs). Those new provisions resulted in an increase of £537·4 million in the Department's net resource requirement.

Part B of the Committee's template requested information on TEO's budgetary requirements for 2020-21. Our latest assessment is that TEO's resource DEL budgetary requirement amounts to £184·6 million, of which £151·1 million is inescapable, £33 million is pre-committed and half a million pounds is high priority. Inescapable expenditure primarily comprises staff costs in the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs), together with the legislative obligations relating to historical institutional abuse implementation and victims' payments. Also included are contractually committed expenditure on staffing and projects in the social investment fund (SIF) and communities in transition.

TEO's current challenges include taking forward the delivery of key functions that support the Executive's response to COVID-19, including operational responsibility for the NI hub and leading on the delivery of an advertising and public information campaign.

The Department's capital DEL budgetary requirements amount to £18·8 million in 2020-21, of which £10·1 million relate to contractual commitments in the SIF and Urban Villages programmes. The Department is entitled to retain 10% of financial transactions capital (FTC) repayments to set against those pressures, which amounts to £0·7 million.

TEO also anticipates receiving income of some £5 million in 2020-21, the majority of which represents the recoupment of existing costs. That is therefore required to meet the Department's RDEL pressures. TEO's proposed budget for 2020-21 does not include allocations for victims' payments or various elements of New Decade, New Approach (NDNA). At this stage, we are taking forward the necessary preparatory work for these matters in the Department's baseline on the basis that additional funding for full implementation will be made available at the appropriate time. The June monitoring round will enable the Department to bid for its COVID-19 costs and to receive communities in transition funding from DOJ.

This is a challenging and uncertain time for us all, and we will keep the Department's budgetary position under close scrutiny over the coming weeks and months. I hope that that overview was helpful. Peter and I will be happy to take questions from members on any of the issues that were raised.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK, thank you very much, Mark. We will move on to members questions. I will start with a few.

You mentioned the separate budget allocation that will be required for the COVID-19 response, and I know that that is separate from the other budgets that you have. Are you confident that you will get the right amount of money that you need to be able to deliver the response? As you progress that response, is it being costed then delivered, or is it delivered then costed?

Dr Browne: The position is that the Minister of Finance, in looking at the available allocations for COVID-19 coming across through the Barnett consequentials, brought a paper to the Executive that recommended that the bulk of that money, if not all of it, should go to the Health response. That was supported by the Executive. The initial costs that we have for the hub are not being met because all the money has gone to Health or to other very urgent pressures. We intend to bid at the first monitoring round, and I am hopeful that, in light of the fact that there have been some further Barnett consequentials, some of that might be met. That will depend very much on just how this crisis develops. In the meantime, we feel that we can absorb the initial costs in the short term that we are being asked to, but, in the long term, we will be bidding for and are hopeful for — we would need to receive — some additional funding.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Could you give us an update on what those hubs are? I have a fair idea of what they are, but what exactly is that £2 million being spent on? Are these the hubs that are based amongst the councils? Are you funding those, or is that a separate type of hub?

Dr Browne: The current emergency management arrangements are that each Department has a departmental operational centre (DOC) to coordinate its response. In TEO, we are funding the central hub, or what is called the Northern Ireland hub, which draws in information from the departmental hubs along with information from councils and a range of other sources, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the various relevant agencies.

It provides a situation report to the Executive that enables the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to make the decisions that they need to make in managing the crisis. The Northern Ireland hub is the central hub. There are other hubs in individual Departments, but the funding that we need is for the central hub.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. Looking at the reach of COVID-19, it has taken everybody, in some decision-making processes, out of their comfort zone, and that is to be expected as responses need to be made very quickly. Can we examine the communication between the Department and the Committee? Take the regulations that were implemented at the end of March: approval was given by the Assembly on 21 April, and the Committee is looking at them on 22 April. That is the complete reverse of how it should be. They should be looked at by the Committee, then the Assembly, and then the Department gets to make its response. Can we examine that to see whether there is a better way of keeping up to date? Nobody is questioning that the decisions need to be taken, but it is uncomfortable that we are going about it back to front.

Dr Browne: Chair, that is something that I would have to take to the head of the hub to ask what the arrangements are for that. I am not over the detail of that, but I think that that is probably a consequence of the necessary pace at which events have to move and the need for speedy decisions. However, I can certainly relay that to the hub. If the Committee wants to write to me, I can certainly get some input from the head of the hub on that matter.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK, we will do that. Just to clarify, Mark, that is not a criticism. I really appreciate that it is being done this way because of a scenario that we have not planned for and which we are working our way through. It is about whether there is a real-time way of being able to examine and make changes as we go to make sure that democratic scrutiny is in place? We do not want to find out afterwards that things could have been done differently, and, had they been done differently, they could have been done better. It is just to be able to keep ourselves up to date.

Finally, it says that you have identified inescapable pressures of £6·3 million for staff resources for the exit from the EU. There are two matters there. Number one, can you elaborate on what that staffing cover is? Where are we with the work? I know that it is not your direct responsibility, but I would like to hear your observations as a director in the Department. Given that the British Government seem hell-bent on continuing with Brexit, that gives us about six or eight weeks before we need to have everything in place. Yet we are in the middle of a crisis that needs to be responded to. Can you tell us about the staff pressures and where the Department is with Brexit?

Dr Browne: I will let Peter pick up on the financial element, Chair, if that is OK. On the more general question, it is important that the voice of Northern Ireland be represented and that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister participate in the ongoing Brexit discussions. There is a need for this, despite the fact that Brexit was once the all-consuming, number-one priority and has now been replaced by COVID-19. Nevertheless, it remains a very important issue. The Department needs to support Ministers and to be in touch with Whitehall and the other devolved Administrations in order to ensure that it is managed effectively. We continue to have an important role in that, which brings with it various costs. Perhaps Peter can pick up on the detail of the finances.

Mr Peter Toogood (The Executive Office): Yes, the £2·7 million costs that we have outlined in the templates reflect our assessment of what would be required, even before COVID-19. That was the assessment of the staffing-related costs that make up the bulk of the allocation. Approximately £2 million of that is in relation to the team that is in place. We also have requirements for media commitments as we move through the transition period and also in relation to any administrative travelling requirements to and from London etc. That reflects our assessment at this stage. It was put in place before the current circumstances and will remain under close scrutiny. That funding is provided by DOF separately as a ring-fenced budget, so if that budget is either insufficient or not required, we will liaise directly with DOF on that. The requirements in relation to Brexit are dealt with centrally with DOF and in conjunction with other Departments.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): You might elaborate for us on the media element. What do you mean by "media commitments" in the context of Brexit? Is that information updates?

Mr Toogood: It is about engaging with the public on any implications of what is happening so that the public are aware of what is happening and what is required. That was put in by the Brexit team as something that would be helpful and necessary, because there will undoubtedly be a change in the way things are done because of Brexit.

Mr Nesbitt: Good afternoon, Mark and Peter. I want to ask about three areas; two specifics and one more general. For members' benefit, I will give out the page number relevant to the information pack, but, for Mark and Peter, I will also give the page number of the briefing document that they supplied. Starting on page 21 of the pack, which is page 11 of the departmental briefing, the first line is about programme delivery costs for New Decade, New Approach. There is £800,000 for preparatory work on language, identity and cultural expression, including for progressing legislation and the creation of the relevant bodies. Does that mean that the £5·8 million budget line for the office of culture that you previously presented to us has gone in the meantime?

Dr Browne: At the moment, we are doing preparatory work in the Department on the policy and on the preparation for the Bill and for taking it through the Assembly. As we discussed before, the potential costs of the office and, indeed, the commissioner posts have not been determined in detail. All we had done before was put in a general marker bid to identify that there would be some costs. Until we are clear about the timing of the legislation, which is particularly challenging in the current circumstances, we will not know what spend will be required this year. Our plan is that what is likely to happen is that work will be done to develop the legislation and develop the outline of the office, and we will then appoint some people in the office and ask them to specify what they feel the requirements are for those offices, after which the overall costs will be considered by Ministers. It is a combination of a slightly different approach and of the fact that the timescale has had to change because of the emergency.

Mr Nesbitt: I understand that circumstances have changed, Mark. I will take that as a yes and take it that the £5·8 million budget line has gone in the meantime but without prejudice to a budget line being brought in later in the financial year, depending on how things roll out.

Dr Browne: By the time the legislation goes through, allowing for the circumstances, and by the time the appointment processes would be in place, the likelihood of significant expenditure this year is fairly small.

Mr Nesbitt: OK, thank you. The second point is on the next line of the same page. There is £0·5 million for new posts to address a range of essential departmental functions, which I understand. You have a 72·4% increase in your departmental expenditure limits. Your budget is way, way up. It makes me wonder, Mark: given that the voluntary exit scheme was the biggest reduction in headcount in the history of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, has that impacted negatively, with hindsight, because of Brexit and now COVID-19?

Dr Browne: The purpose of the voluntary exit scheme at the time, as you probably recall, was to reduce the pay bill because of budgetary pressures on Departments at that point. There was a significant reduction, as you say, through the voluntary exit scheme in the cost of civil servants. It resulted in a significant reduction in the number of civil servants. At that point, no one had predicted that significant new issues such as Brexit and COVID-19 would come into play. There is no doubt that it has put pressure on resources, and there has been a need to scale back up again.

Mr Nesbitt: Finally, this question is more complex, certainly in my mind. It is at page 16 of the members' pack but page 6 of the briefing pack. It is about annually managed expenditure. I remember that, during the Stormont House talks, the then head of the Civil Service had the parties briefed on the different types of funding. The block grant is a fixed sum of money that the Executive carve up as they wish into DEL for the various Departments. That is one source of money. AME is a second, flexible sum of money, which we were told to think of as paying for pensions, benefits and student loans primarily. However, I see here that you have made an allocation in 2019-2020 of £434 million of AME for redress payments for abuse victims, £105 million for Troubles victims and a smaller amount for holiday pay entitlement. Could either Mark or Peter talk me through how that works?

Dr Browne: In the first instance, this is an accounting issue, so Peter will give you the detail of it. You are quite right that AME is usually used for the sorts of things that you have described, such as social security expenditure or student-related costs. There are things where the expenditure is unpredictable and largely demand-led. However, there are also circumstances where the liabilities that might come into play are unclear and so you create a provision and, in creating a provision, you have to look at ensuring that appropriate financial provision is made. I understand that that is AME, but Peter will give you chapter and verse on that.

Mr Toogood: With the nature of those two schemes at the moment, we have to create a provision for them in our accounts, and that provision is a liability that is uncertain in timing and amount. When we create that provision in the accounts, public expenditure rules dictate that we must make a corresponding adjustment in the budgets, because public expenditure is a consideration of accounts. There is a three-pronged assessment. When we trigger something in accounts, we have to do a corresponding entry in our budgets, and 'Consolidated Budgeting Guidance', which is our handbook on how we treat those matters, dictates that when you create a provision in the accounts, you create a corresponding entry in the AME budget. By doing that, we are simply following the guidance. Now, provision, because it is uncertain and because we do not know when it will happen, we recognise it in AME. When we start to use that provision — as and when payments start to happen such as, for example, in relation to HIA — we need the appropriate budget cover in our DEL budgets. You will see that, this year, we got £37·5 million in our DEL allocation, because, as and when we start to make payments, that hits our DEL budget, and the AME cover reduces accordingly. It is unusual. It is not like normal public-sector accounting; it is just a reflection of the rules that we have to follow.

Dr Browne: As a non-accountant, I would characterise it as almost flagging up, at an early point, the total bill that is to come and then, when you get to DEL, you are actually making the payment. AME is flagging up the total cost that you might be likely to incur over the whole period. Is that right, Peter?

Mr Toogood: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: I get that. It is important that victims of historical abuse understand that that AME sum of £434 million does not exist as an actual sum of money but is the anticipated cost over the lifetime of the scheme, whereas, as you said, Peter — this is on page 20 of the pack or page 10 of the briefing — there is, this year, £37·5 million of actual money for redress.

Mr Toogood: That is correct.

Mr Nesbitt: Peter, you mentioned 'Consolidated Budgeting Guidance', and I have had a look at that. At 1.43, under "Restrictions on switches", it says:

Can you clarify that for me?

Mr Toogood: That is correct. It is not an actual switch from AME to DEL. What actually happens is that we process a reduction through the AME budget and make it correspond and then the corresponding cost comes through in the DEL. We are not actually switching budgets per se. Section 3.65 of 'Consolidated Budgeting Guidance' tells you how the provision works and outlines the scoring. There is a helpful table there. It shows you how to recognise the provision.

Mr Nesbitt: Thanks, Peter. I will look at that. Are you saying that, at the end of this financial year, if you have spent the £37·5 million of DEL on redress, the £434 million of AME will come down by £37·5 million?

Mr Toogood: Yes. [Inaudible.]

Mr Nesbitt: There is £105 million of AME over the first three years of the scheme for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, which we previously knew as the Troubles pension. On page 20, or page 10, in terms of DEL, there is £56·3 million allocated. In this case, does that money actually exist?

Dr Browne: It is the same process as Peter just described, with one difference. We are identifying the fact that, if the scheme goes ahead as planned with the same timing, there could be the possibility of spending £56 million. Therefore, we need to have that money available. It has not been put into our budget because, as you will be aware, the Executive take the view that this should be funded by the British Treasury. That funding has not been provided. The permanent secretary of the Department of Finance wrote to ask about the funding and has not yet received any substantive reply from the NIO. This is still a matter of discussion and debate between the Executive, our Department of Finance and the Treasury. From our perspective, as a Department, we would need that money to make those payments to victims, but that funding has not been made available to us.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to be clear, Mark, on behalf of victims. For victims of historical institutional abuse, there is £37·5 million available in this financial year to start progressing redress payments, yes?

Dr Browne: That is correct. There is also a redress board in place and a

in place, and the application process is open and operating, as you know.

Mr Nesbitt: If a victim of the Troubles wants to apply for the permanent disability pay scheme, there is no budget at the moment.

Dr Browne: We have entered what we think the cost would be. Those funds have not been made available to us. The two schemes are at different points of development. The arrangements for victims to apply for the permanent disablement scheme and all the arrangements for payments are not yet in place.

Mr Nesbitt: The money is not in place.

Dr Browne: The arrangements would need to be in place, because the arrangements and the application process generate the need for the funding. We have identified that, if they go forward according the original time frame, that is the budget that we would need. As I said, there is a debate about that between the Executive and the Treasury.

Mr Nesbitt: I am just trying to be clear, Mark: the money for the victims of historical abuse is agreed by the Executive and will be made available, but the same cannot be said for the money for Troubles victims.

Dr Browne: What I am saying is that, on the historical institutional abuse, the arrangements, the applications process and those who can decide that and make awards are all in place. Those payments will start to come through, and the money for that is, therefore, in place. However, we are not at that stage with the permanent disablement scheme. The arrangements are not in place, the designated Department has not been agreed, and, therefore, there is no mechanism at the moment to apply and, therefore, to be awarded.

Mr Nesbitt: That is not what I am asking; I asking whether the budget is there. You are saying that the Executive think that the NIO should provide the budget, and the NIO is not saying yes.

Dr Browne: You are correct that the budget is not yet in place, but neither are the arrangements to draw down the budget.

Mr Nesbitt: That is a technical matter, whereas the bigger issue is the political disagreement about where the money is coming from. Victims who are looking forward to applying for this payment should be aware that they are not in the same place as the victims of historical institutional abuse. I will leave it there, Chair.

Ms Anderson: Thank you for that briefing and overview. I want to pass comment on what the Chair said and to support our need, as a Committee, to exercise scrutiny, because it is not good enough that the Committee will be doing it retrospectively. As a Committee, and as members, we are more than willing to do that at a particular time of day or night, if necessary, to allow scrutiny to take place. Whether it is about the Department and the Committee designing a template to agree how that is to be done, we need to find a mechanism. I am very much aware of the pace at which things have to move as a result of COVID-19, but we are all willing to operate outside normal hours. I want you to know that I think that the Committee would be available for that. That should not prohibit us from carrying out a scrutiny function now rather than retrospectively, at some point in the future, when decisions have already been taken.

I want to ask you about the £0·4 million on page 6 for EU exit, part of which was for preparation in the event of no deal. Given where we are at the minute, some might say, "Bring back Brexit; all is forgiven", but I would like to hear more information about what kind of preparation had been under way. Many would have been concerned, and still are, about the prospects of a no deal. We are still potentially facing into that situation — negotiations are under way — so I am concerned to know whether the work that had started has stopped. Where are we with an assessment of a potential no-deal Brexit?

Rather than bouncing in and out, I will go through a few questions. On pages 7 and 10, there are references to Ebrington in Derry and work that is under way there. For that site, there are capital requirements of £2·3 million that are described as "non-ring-fenced expenditure". I am a little concerned by that description. Is there a guarantee that that funding will be fully utilised? I am very conscious of where we are at the moment and the difficulties of utilising any funding, but I would not want anything to slide.

You were talking to Mike about historical institutional abuse. I have been dealing with Jon McCourt and others in, for instance, Survivors North West. You said that the scheme is now open for applications. It may not be your territory, but I know that, for instance — we have raised it before — there is a need for a birth certificate and a passport, and that is proving difficult for some victims. Most people who have a passport will have had access to their birth certificate at one time, so I think that that is viewed as somewhat over-bureaucratic.

That may not be your area of work, but, perhaps, when we are dealing with it later in the statutory rules, I can come back to it, Chair. I have a couple of issues about that that we need to flag up. While the application process has opened, it is not plain sailing, as there is information that is needed by survivors or by the surviving spouses or children of survivors who are applying on behalf of a deceased person. Are they entitled to an award of redress on the same basis as a living applicant so that the award to them — the spouse or the children — is not considered taxable or a benefit? There are also the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an issue with accessing the files of those who gave evidence to the historical institutional abuse inquiry in Banbridge. I know that some, although not all, of the files have been transferred, and, given where we are at the moment, that needs to be done in the digital format.

I have raised that with you because you said that the application process is open, and I do not want to leave the impression that it is being processed in a way that is not resulting in some bureaucratic hurdles that victims have to overcome.

Dr Browne: OK. Thanks, Martina. I am happy to take those questions. I will start in reverse and pick up with the HIA one first. It is my area —

Ms Anderson: All right; OK.

Dr Browne: — and you may recall that Gareth and I came to the Committee to discuss it. The scheme has opened, despite the fact that we are in the middle of the COVID-19 lockdown, and that was quite a significant achievement. We have tried to keep it as digitally based as possible, while providing paper forms and applications for those who do not have access to the digital route. All that was designed to ensure that we adhere to the current restrictions and guidance on COVID-19 and so that people are not going to meet solicitors and so forth. We have tried to keep it online. To date, 21 applications have been received; six were hard-copy and 15 were made online. On the point that you made about

eight of those applicants gave evidence to the Hart inquiry and 15 were non-Hart.

When we started the processes, we worked through them with the victims' groups to try to make them as user-friendly as possible, but if some issues have been identified, it is important that they are raised with the interim advocate and the redress board so that they can be dealt with.

On the point about establishing identity, it is the same requirements that are needed to vote. It does not have to be a passport; the same proof of identity can be used as those needed to vote. It is the same requirement as it is to vote, so that should provide some scope for people to establish —.

Ms Anderson: So that I am clear on this, are you saying that it is either/or, because I believe that the victims understand that, for instance, a birth certificate is needed along with/in addition to a passport, so not one or the other? Are you saying that it is a form of identification, as opposed to all that together?

Dr Browne: I think that you need both. You need a birth certificate and a form of identification that is consistent with what you need to vote. I do not think that it has to be a passport; that is what I am saying, Martina, but I can get you chapter and verse on that.

Ms Anderson: That is presenting difficulties for some victims who do not have a birth certificate. We have already gone through this, and we know that that has been exposed. That is where the bureaucratic process needs to be examined, and you need to go back to what you are asking people to present, because they may not have it.

Dr Browne: This was discussed, and it was acknowledged that there might be some difficulties for some people with birth certificates. Where there is sufficient evidence of proof of their identity and the fact that they were in a home, that is the critical thing and the purpose of that material. There are ways of doing that, but, as I said, we can pick that up.

Ms Anderson: OK.

Dr Browne: On the point about spouses and children, it is my understanding that it is on the same basis — it is non-taxable. That is my understanding, but, again, I can check through the detail of that for you.

Ms Anderson: OK. Thank you.

Dr Browne: In respect of the files in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), we have staff there. However, it is difficult, because, once again, restrictions are impacting on the number of staff who are available to do the work. The record in PRONI is being digitised. Good progress is being made on that and that has been made available to the redress board.

On those figures, I should mention that we expect quite a significant number of people to come forward who have not been to Hart and whose records are not already held by PRONI. Where they are, we are digitising them and will make them available to the redress board.

Ms Anderson: OK, so they are being transferred in that digital format, and those that have not yet been done will be done.

Dr Browne: That is in progress. I do not have the actual figures, but, the last time that I looked at it, I saw that quite significant progress had been made. There are somewhere in the region of 500 applications in PRONI, and around 150 have been digitised. We are working through those on a regular basis, but I do not have the current figure.

Ms Anderson: OK. Could you get us an update on that, because 150 out of 500 is not a substantive number? It is not the lion's share of it, so maybe you could get us an update on where that is.

Dr Browne: Martina, it is important to recognise that, when we opened the scheme, we made the point that there would be restrictions on our capacity to make all the information available and to move applications through as quickly as we would expect under circumstances other than COVID. We have only a limited number of people who we can make available or get to be available to do this work. We are trying to do this as best we can, because we thought that it was important to meet the commitment to victims to open the scheme at the end of March as we said we would.

Ms Anderson: I appreciate that we are in unprecedented circumstances, and I know that PRONI is working on a skeleton staff because of COVID, but you will appreciate that, in our role as MLAs, we need to scrutinise and push this and, if we can, move it forward a little bit faster.

Dr Browne: Absolutely, and we are doing everything that we can to keep it moving. PRONI is now closed and is open only so that our staff and Courts and Tribunals Service staff can access those received records.

To reassure you on Ebrington, although the money is not ring-fenced, it is money that we bid for every year as part of our capital programme. We have not had a problem with the availability of capital, and, generally, where we have needed the money, it has been there. It takes time to get the buildings there into a shape where they can be leased out. We also have problems because the star fort walls are ancient monuments and are older buildings. We are working with the private sector to make sure that leases are made available. Good progress has been made across the site, and there is now an agreement in place for licences for all the buildings. I reassure you that, at present, there is no threat to the availability of funding for Ebrington and that we are waiting to move forward with all the buildings on the site.

Mr Toogood: The terminology "ring-fenced" is one that DOF applies, so whenever we say that, we mean that funding is ring-fenced only from a DOF perspective. When we say "non-ring-fenced", that means that it is at the discretion of us in the Department to allocate funding according to where our priorities are, and, as Mark said, capital funding has been made available and allocated to Ebrington to complete the work that has been ongoing there. "Ring-fenced" is a technical term that DOF applies.

Ms Anderson: OK. That is helpful, because I could not understand why it said that it was a "pre-commitment" but then said that it was "non-ring-fenced". I thought that that was a contradiction, but I understand what you are saying. It is just a technical term.

Mr Toogood: Yes.

Ms Anderson: OK. Thank you.

Dr Browne: I will have to defer to my Brexit colleagues on your other point about a no-deal Brexit and cost, because I am not involved in the detail of that. The team was looking at all eventualities, was keeping in touch with developments and was putting contingency measures in place as far as possible. The planning for Brexit continues, and, as I mentioned, contact with the other devolved Administrations, Westminster and the EU continues in order that we can understand what is being planned and what the potential impact will be locally. We still need to have that team in place, but COVID-19 has consumed so much time and space that the levels of activity are not as high as they were.

Ms Anderson: I am just concerned that you have funding being surrendered for a process that is still going on through negotiations. We could be facing a no-deal Brexit, and you are surrendering funding that is meant for dealing with that part of the preparation. That is my concern, even if you did have the wherewithal and the personnel to look at this. We have an Executive Brexit committee as well, but I am raising this because of the funding that has been surrendered in the in-year monitoring round.

Dr Browne: Yes, but the funding was surrendered because it was not required in that year. If we need further funding, we will seek it centrally from DOF. It does not mean that we are not putting any money towards a no-deal Brexit or preparations. It simply means that, in the last year, money was surrendered because we did not require it in that time frame.

Ms Anderson: OK. It would be good at some stage to get an update on where we are with that.

Dr Browne: If the Committee wants to write to the Department, someone from the Brexit side can present on that.

Ms Anderson: OK. Thank you for that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I have been told that we are having a briefing next week on Brexit, so it will be timely, then, to get that information.

Mr Stalford: Thanks for your answers so far. In annex A, on page 26 of my pack, it states:

Can you give me an update on where the conversations are with Treasury on that?

Dr Browne: As I mentioned, some time ago, Sue Gray wrote to Jonathan Stephens, who is now retired, raising the issue about funding and about the fact that the policy originated in Westminster and should be funded from there. That is consistent with the funding policy guidance. We did not receive any substantive reply to that. In the recent Budget, when the initial allocations were being made, Conor Murphy made the point that, in his view, the funding for this should come from Treasury. That is where it remains, to my knowledge.

Mr Stalford: If Westminster introduced this, is the standing convention that, although it created it, we would now be expected to pay for it?

Dr Browne: That is precisely the point in that the funding policy dictates that the Administration that raises the policy and put the policy through in law is the one that should identify the funding. That is where the discussion is at the moment.

Mr Stalford: Is that an accepted convention? The reason I ask is that there are other policies that Julian Smith, during his tenure, instituted, and I am just trying to establish whether it is accepted convention in practice that if Westminster legislates for something, it should pay for it.

Dr Browne: That is certainly the view that the permanent secretary and the Department of Finance took on this. That is the best advice that I have.

Mr Stalford: OK.

In annex A, does what it says on page 23 of the pack imply that the £2·3 million non-ring-fenced capital DEL (CDEL) may not be spent on Urban Villages and that it may be moved elsewhere?

Dr Browne: Peter, do you want to pick that one up?

Mr Toogood: Yes. It is the same principle that I outlined on Brexit. DOF applies the ring-fencing terminology for particular funding streams to Departments. For us, the ring-fenced funding stream on the CDEL side is in relation to Delivering Social Change. That is the £7·8 million that you will see on the line above. That means that we cannot move that money anywhere else within our spending area. If we do not utilize that £7·8 million, we will have to surrender it back to DOF.

The non-ring fenced funding just gives us, as a Department, the ability to allocate funding to whatever priorities we consider there to be. I think that the Urban Villages project is under way, subject to contractual commitments, so we will have to meet that £2·3 million cost because it is legally committed. The non-ring-fenced funding reflects that we have allocated money out of our general allocation for CDEL.

Mr Stalford: Can I be absolutely confident that that £2·3 million will be delivered to the Urban Villages programme?

Mr Toogood: Yes.

Mr Stalford: That is grand.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Pat Sheehan, you are online. Do you have any questions?

Mr Sheehan: Sorry. I was just unmuting there.

Mr Stalford: Thanks very much. [Laughter.]

I hope you were not muting me?

Ms Anderson: No, himself. You are getting paranoid.

Mr Sheehan: It is OK, Christopher. It is just me who was muted.

Mr Nesbitt: But it is an idea, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: It is a nice thought. [Laughter.]

I thank Mark and Peter. I just have one question about the crisis that we are in at the minute and the lockdown. Is there any anticipation that there will be underspend in some of the budget lines as a result of the COVID crisis?

Dr Browne: We are looking at that, Pat. As you can understand, it is pretty well impossible in most areas to deliver the things that were put forward. In a lot of our funding programmes, groups are looking at innovative ways to deliver their programme, such as going online as far as possible or using some other approach. We are working with them to try to be flexible so that they can deliver the programmes in different ways and, if necessary, push back some of the face-to-face work till later in the year depending, of course, on how all this develops. We will be keeping a close eye on the funding. The reality is that, in some areas, there could be underspend, and we need to keep an eye on that.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that. If any potential underspend is anticipated soon enough, can it be re-profiled to go somewhere else?

Dr Browne: Absolutely. At the first monitoring round, we can see whether there is any evidence of emerging underspends and any evidence in the Department of emerging pressures that we can put that towards. If not, we will surrender it to the centre to meet any pressures across other Departments.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Thanks for that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Gentlemen, just before completing, I want to ask a supplementary question. You obviously have funding that you give to groups and organisations, but you also draw down funding from places such as the European Union to hand out to groups for use. Have you had any steer from the likes of the European Union and other funding bodies that you draw down funds from that they are happy for you to use innovative ways to work and that they are not looking to recall any of the budgets that they have given to you?

Dr Browne: The indications that I have seen so far from the Special EU Programmes Body is that it is looking with groups at how to deliver things in a different way to meet the objectives and outcomes that are set for the various programmes in a different way. My understanding is that it is trying to exercise some flexibility and is working with groups to do that. I think that that is a fairly common approach across funding bodies.

Certainly, from our perspective, we are working hard with groups to allow them to do that. We have had some very good examples. The north Belfast good relations programme is a good example. One of the ways that that was taken forward was to have the historian Eamon Phoenix do a virtual walking tour around north Belfast, and people were able to go online and follow that. That helped to deliver that programme in a very innovative and enjoyable way.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. Thank you for that. We are finished with the members in the room. Pat was the only one on the telephone at the start of this. Are any other members on via teleconferencing?

Mr Robinson: George Robinson is here.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Oh, hello. George, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

Mr Robinson: I have no questions. I have been listening in for the last hour or so, but I have nothing to add. I have no pack in front of me, so I cannot really take part in the meeting, but I have been keeping an eye on developments and listening to the questions so far.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. That is grand. Are any other members there?

Ms Sheerin: Emma Sheerin is here as well, but I do not have anything that I want to add.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. That is grand. Trevor, you are indicating.

Mr Lunn: I just want to apologise, Chair. I have only just managed to conquer the technology here. I have not had the pack in front of me. That is why I have been sitting here looking bewildered. I will make up for it next week. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): That is OK. We are using a different format next week — no, I am only joking.

Peter and Mark, that is us finished with you. Thank you very much for coming along via teleconference today to give us your input.

Mr Toogood: Thank you.

Dr Browne: Thank you very much.